The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8. Citizen Attitude Survey Results Presentation by Decision Resources . � ' • � DECISTON RESOURCES, LTD. ROSEMOUNT FUTURES STUDY 3128 Dean Court December, 1988 Minneapolis, Minnesc�ta 55414 - Hello, I'm of Deeision Resaurces, Ltd. , a nationwide polling firm lacated in Minneapolis. We�ve be�n retained by the City of Rosemount ta speak with a randorn sample of residents about issues facing the city. The survey is being taken beeause the City is interested in your opinians and suggestions. I want to assure you that all individual responses will be he2d strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE) 1. Approximately how many years LESS THAN ONE YEAR. . . . .7� have you lived in Rosemount? t}NE 4R TWO YEARS. . . . . .19� THREE TO FTVE YEARS, . .22� SIX TO TEN YEARS. . . . . . i5°s ELEVEN - TWEi+1TY YEA�2S. 18� OVER TWENTY YEARS. . . . . 18� DUN'T KNOWjREFUSED. , . . .p% 2. zn what city and/or state was yaur immediately przor residence located? ALWAYS ROSEMUUNT: 6% RURAL MZNNESOTA: 16� OUT OF STATE. 15� BURNSVILLE: 4� EAG.AN: 9� APPLE VALLEY: ?$ MINNEAPOLIS: 7$ REST flF HENNEPTN: �� SAINT PAUL: 11$ RESfi OF DAKOTA; 12� REST OF F2AMSEY: 2� REST OF METRO: 4$ SCATTEREDt 1� 3. As things now stand, how lonq LESS THAN C?NE YEAR. . . . .7� in the future do yau expeet fio t7NE TO TWt? YEARS. . . , . : ,?� Iive in Rosemount? THREE T� FIVE YEARS. . . .9$ SiX T� TEN YEARS. , . . . , .8$ OVER TEN YEARS. . . . . . . .55� DQN'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . }.3� 4. Thinking baek to when you moued to Rosemount, what factors were most i.mportant to you in selecting the city? DON'T KNOW: 4� LOCATTON: 8$ RURAL-SMALL TOWNt 21$ J48t 14� FAMILY HERE: 11� LAND-H�USING: I4$ SCHQaLS: 17g CHURCHz 10 LIFELONG RESIDENT: 5� SCATTERED: 5� 5. How would you rate Rosemount on EXCELLENT. . . , . . . . . . , , .3�� that today -- excelient, good, GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46� only fair, or paor? tiNLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . .9� POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2� D�N'T KPtt,tW/REFUSED. . . . 11� 6. How would yau rate the quality of EXCELLENT. � . . . . . . . . . . .32$ life in Rosemaunt -- excellent, G�OD. . . . . . . . �7� . . . . . . . . . , good, only fair, c�r poor? ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . .8� POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2$ DON'T KNUW/REFUSED. . , . . i� 1 . i • When residents are asked what cames to mind when they thi,nk o€ their community, many things ean occur ta them. Minneapol.is residents think of their lake system, Chaska residents think of their town square, and Saint Faul residents think of the State Capitol. 7. What image comes to mind when you think abc�ut Rosemount? DC3N'T KNOW: 4$ NONE: 6$ RURAL-COLtNTRY; 25$ SCH4�LS: 9$ SMALL TOWN CLOSE TO METRO: 22$ FRIENDLY PEOPLE: 9$ BEAUTY: 3$ IRTSH: 4$ LOCATION; l� I�WNTOWNt 2� HaME TOWN: 3� SUBURB: 2� NEGATIVE: 9$ SCATTERED; 1$ 8. What da you like MOST about livinq in Rosemount? DON'T KNOW: 4� RURAL BUT CLOSE: 7� LQCATION: li$ SMALL TOWN: 33� PEOPLE: 14$ PEACEFUL-QUIET: 16� SCHOQLS: 7� BEAUTY: 3� SUBURBAAt; 2� SCATTERED: 2� 9. What do you like LEAST about it? DaN�T KNOY+T: ?$ NOTHING: 23$ RAPID GR�WTH: 15$ TAXES: 4� NO SHOPS: 17� KOCH: 5� At0 DEVELQPMENTt 7� I,C}CATIC3N: 7� CZTY GOVERNMENT: 4� ROADS: Z� SER'VICES; 43k �LIQU�S: 2�t 10. When you tl�ink about Rosemount, SMALL T�WN. . . . . . . . . . . .68� do you see it as a small town SUBURB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27�` or a suburb? BOTH (VOLj . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6� NEITHER (VOL.) . . . . . . . , .U� D.K./REF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0� IF ANSWER GIVEN� �'S "1,2,3, " pR °4� " ASIC: 11. Why do yau �eel that way? NO REASON: 4� GROWTH: 25$ SENSE OF TDENTITY: 1,5$ SIZE; 18$ LOCATI4Nt I7$ D�WNTClWN: 9� PEOPLE: fi$ "MY PERCEPTION": 16� SCATTERED: 1$ Let's talk about the entire community for a moment. . . . If yQu were asked to describe the ONE thing that best makes up the quality of your eommunity TO YOU, which af the following statements would you chbose? (ROTATE CHDICES A-C) 12 • A. The friendships I have with CHOICE A. . . . . . . . . . . . . .19� the people who live there. CHOICE B. . . . . . . . . . . . . .35� B. The quality of things such as eHOZCE C. . . . . . . . . . . . . .27� schoois, churches, parks, or CHOICE D (A+B+C) . . . , . . lo� other services. DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .9� C. The feeiing that I'm living amang people like myself Whether I know them or not. D. Something else (TF SO, ASK: ) What would that be? 2 . � . 13 . Now, which o€ these twc, statements :CHOZCE A. . . . . . . . . . . . . .5g� cames closer to your feelings? CHOICE 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . .29$ A. i have real roots in this HQTH {VOL. j . . . . . . . . . . : .3� community. NEITHER (VQL. j . , . . . . . . .9� B. Rcasemount is just a place to DC}N'T KNQW/REFUSED. . . . .0� 1ive. I'd be just as haPPY elsewhere. IF CHQICE A C►R B IS SELECTED, ASKt 14. Why do you feel that way? NO REASON: 18& ROOTS: 22$ TIME SFENT HERE: 23$ COULD LEAVE: 14$ "MY OPINZQN": 8� . WANT TO MOVE: 5� PEOPLE: 2$ "LII�E IT HERE! 'r 8� 15. How about the following two state- STATEMENT A. . . . . . . . . . .47� ments about the future? STATEMENT B. . . . . . . . . . .40� A. Rosemount should preserve its Bt7TH (VOL. ) . , , , . , . . , . , 10� rural character even if it NEITHER (VpL. ) . . , . . . . . .2� means slower eeonomie develop- D4N'2 KN4W/REFUSED. . . . .2� ment and growth. B. Rosemaunt should aggressively pursue economic development, even i€ it becomes more sub- urban in the process. 16. Would you say the city of RQse- FOR THE BETTER. : , . . . . . 51$ mount has changed far the better FOR THE Wt3RSE. . . . . . . . . .8� in recent years, changed for the NOT �HANGED VER�t MUCH.28$ worse, or has it not changed DON'T KNOW/REFtTSED. . . .13� very much? , IF ANSWER GIVEN IN QUESTTON �16, ASK: 17. Why do you feel that way? NO REASON: 4$ GROWTH: 17� "MY PERGEPTION": 16� MAYOR: 3� GENERAL IMPROVEMENT. 9� STAYED SMALL: 5� NEW DEVELOPMENT: 22� NO DEVELOPMENT: 8� 38. Would you favor or oppose an FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51� increase in city property taxes �PPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3g� if it were needed to maintain DON'T KN�WjREFUSED, . . . 10� city services at their current level? 19. Do you consider property taxes EXCESSTVELY HTGH, . . . . . .�� in Rosemount ta be excessively RELATTVELY HIGH. . . , . . . 13� high, relatively high, about ABOUT AVERAGE. . . . . . . . .55� average, or comparatively low,? C�MPARATIVELY LOW. . . , .il� D+�N�T KNOW/REFUSED. , . . 34� As you may know, property taxes are divided between the City of Rosemount, Dakota County, and your local schoQl distr3.ct. 3 ` � � 20. For each dol�ar af property taxes UNDER TEN PERCENT. . . . . .6� you pay, about what percentage do lo� - 2p�, , , , , , , , , , , , ,�Q� you think goes to city govern- 2z$ - 30�. . . . . . . . . . . . .x6� ment? (READ CHOICES, IF NEE�EDj 31� - 40�. . . . . . . . . . . . . .4� 41� - 50$. . . . . . . . . . . . . .2� 4VER FIFTY PERCENT, . . , .1� Dt3N'T KNOWfREFUSED. . . .52� I would like to read you a list of a few city services. For each one, please tell me whether you would rate the quaiity of the service as exeelient, good� only fair, or poor? EXC GOOU FAIR PODR D.K. 21. Police protection? 24$ 58� 10� 2� 6$ 22. Fire protection? 2T� 52$ 5� 2� 16$ 23. City street repair and maintenance? 7�k 59�k 19� 10� 5� 24. Water quality? 8� 32� 22� 25� 14� 25. Snow plowing? 38� 56� 16� 7� 3$ 26. Animal control? 10$ 50� 19$ 7� 15� 27. Building and housing inspection? 6� 38`� 10� 6$ 41� 28. Park maintenanee? 27� 53� 7$ },� k3� IF "ONLY FAIR" QR "POOR" IN QUESTIONS 21-28, ASK Ft?R EAGH: 29. Why did you rate as {only fair/paor) ? WATER QUALITY: 22� N0 STANDARD3; 7$ PDOR UPKEEP; ?� LOOSE ANIMALS: 8$ WATER + ANIMALS: 2$ SLOWt 8� WATER + STREETS: 4$ THREE OR MORE: 11� 30. How would you rate the general EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . .32� appearance of your neighborhood GO�D, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,6�� -- excellent. good, only fair, ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . .�$ or poor? P40R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i� AON�T KNQWfREFUSED. . . . .Q$ 31. Other than voting, do you feei YEs. . , . . . . . . + . . . . . . . . .gg� that if you wanted to, you could NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23� have a say about the way the DON'T KNOW/REFU5ED. . . . 12� City of Rosemount runs things? 32. How much do you feel you know A GREAT DEAL. . , . . „ , , , .5� about the work of the Mayor and A FAIR AMOUNT. . . . . . . . ,37� Cifiy Council -- a great deai, a VERY LITTLE. . . . . . . . . . .52$ fair amount, or very lfttle? . Qt?N�T KNpW/REFUSED. . . . .6$ 4 . �► s 33. From what you know, do you approve STRt)NGLY APPROVE. . . . . .i3� ar disapprove of the job th� Mayor SOMEWHAT APPRt1VE. . . . . .54� and City Couttcil are doinq? {WAIT SOMEWHAT DISAFPROVE. . . .7� FOR RESPqNSEj And do you feel STR�NGLY DISAFPROVE. . . .2� strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . .24� IF ANSWER "1" TO "4", GIVEN IN QUESTION �33, ASK: 34. Why do you feel that way? NO REASON: 13$ GOOD JOH: 24$ MAYORz 10$ HEARSAY: 9$ ISSUES: 7� CQULD IMPROVE; 8$ CflMMtJNICATE: 2$ NO PROBLEMSs 4$ 35. How much first-hand contact have QUTTE A LOT. . , . . . . . . . . 12� you had with the Rosemount City S4ME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .y5�; staff --- quite a lot, some, very VERY LTTTLE. . . . . . . . . . .39� little, or none? NONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19� DON'T KN4W,/REFUSED, . . , .6� 36. From what you have seen or heard, EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . 12� how would you rate the job per- GOflD.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45� formance of the Rosemount City ONLX FAiR. . . . . . . . . . . . .13� staff -- excellent, good, only POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4� fair, or poor? �N'T KN4W/REFUSED. . . .25� IF ANSWER "1" TO r'4'�.� GIVEN IN QUESTIt)N �36, ASK: 37. Why did you rate the city staff as � NO REASONs 8$ HEARSAYs 7$ HELFFUL: 18$ PQL3TE: 3'� GOOD JOB: 20$ COULD IMPROVE: 13� RUDEt 2� NO PROBLEM: 4� 38. Do you feel that crimes against INCREASED. . . . . . . . . . . . .22� � property in Rosemount have QECREASED. . . . . . .: . . . . . .4� increased, decreased, or remained ABOUT THE SAME. . . , . . . ,47� about the same during the gast UON'T KNQW/REFUSED. . . ,28� five years? 39. How about crimes against people, INCREASED. . . . . . . . . . . . .2p� have they increased, decreased, DECREASED. . . . .', , . , . . . . ,5� or remained about the same ABOETT THE SAME. . . . . . . .54� during the past five years? DON'T KNt?WfREFUSED. . . .31� 4Q. Overall, how would you rate the EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . .'.60� quality of education in Irtdepen- GOC3t3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27� dent School District �196 -- ONLX FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . .3� excellent, goad, anly fair, or Pc�4R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i� goor? T?�N'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 1Q� As you may know, the University of Minnesota holds 3000 acres af land within the City of Rosemount. 5 . � � � ' 4i. �n general, do y�ou feel that the HAS BEEN .,�SPONSI�i,E. .36� 7niversity of Minnesota has been HAS N�T BE'�.N. . . . . . . . . .44� _�esponsible in the administration DON'T KNO�+ REFiJS�L3. . , .2�� 3nd use of that 1and, or not? 42. �hat type of use would you m4st favQr for th�_ land? �CiN�T KNOW: 28$ HOU5ING: 9$ AG. �ESEARCH; �� RETAILt l$ :.IGHT INDUSTRY: 9$ JOB CREATING: 3$ LEAVE .�w.C?NE: l+p$ :ARMS: 12� NATURE CENTER: 10� VO-TECH: 4� "AX BASE: 4$ �CATTERED: 4� 43. 3re there any uses which you would definitel� oppose? �ON'T KN4W: 9� NONE: 13� AIRPORTZ 52�: WAS'r' DUMP: 14� =NDUSTRY: 4� CHEMICAL ST�RAGE: 2� HQUSINGs �� OTHER: 2$ The =ziversity of Minnesota land is currently sub:�ct to oniy sta=_ and federal laws. The City of R�semount car. exert no con�l over the use of that land. 44. �ould you favor or oppose the STRONGLY F?VqR. , . . . . . .45� =ity spending funds to labby S�MEWHAT �?VOR. . . . . , . .�4� =he legislature for the ability SOMEWHAT C=POSE« . . . . . . .8$ =o place some controls on the use STRONGLY C2POSE. . . . . . . .?� �f the University's land? (WAIT DON�T KNOt+ 'REFUSED. . . .15� ?OR RESPONSE) And do you feel �trongly that way? =F "STRONGLY" OR "SOMEWHAT FAVOR" IN QUESTION #44, ASK: �5. Would you still favor the FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .�5� lobbying efforts if a modest OPPt?SE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .g� property tax increase were DON'T KNO�+ REFUSED. . . . .5� required to cover the costs? The _.�ch (COKE) Refinery is also located in the e��tern portion of =:,.� City of Rosemount, commonly called "Pine Bs-d.�� 46. aere you aware of the fact that AWARE. . . , . . , , . . � , . . . , .78� -he refinery is within the city Nt3T AWARE, , , , , , , , , , , , ,22� =imits? �ON'T KNOK REFiJSED. . . . .U� 47. _n generaZ, how would you rate EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . .6� =.hat company as a corporate GaOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35� �iti2en of the City -- excellent, f3NLX FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . .28$ .00d, only fair, or paor? P�OR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9� DOId'T KNQk REFUSED. . . .13� 6 , � � 48. If you could advise the management of the Koch Refine�y to make one change or improvement that would help the City c,f Rosemount, what would it be? DON'T KNOW; 27� MOVE: 2$ CONTROL PflLLUTION: 43� CONTROL ODOR: 15$ COMMUNICATE: 7� JOBS FOR LQCALS,• 3$ HELP ROSEMOUNT: 2� SCATTERED: 1$ Let's talk about economic development for a few minutes. . . . 49. if the City of Rosemount were to attract more development, what kind would you prefer it t� be? DON'T KNOW: 43� FiIGH TECH: 4$ BALANCED MIX: 8� QFFICE: 14� RETAIL: 20� TNDUSTRIAL: 28$ JOB CREATTNG: 2� HOMES; 13� RECREATIaNAL: 2� NONE: 4$ SCATTERED: 2$ 50• Would you support or oppose an STRONGLY FAVOR. . , . , , , ,38g aggressive effort by the City SOMEWHAT FAVQR. . . . . . . .42� of Rosemaunt to attract new com- SOMEWHAT OPPOSE. . . . , . . .g� mercia]. and light i.ndustrial STRONGLY OPPOSE. . . , . . . .g� devel.opment? (WAIT FOR RESPpNSE) DON'T KNOWjREFUSED. . , . .4� Do you feel strongly that way? 51. Would you favor ar oppose provi- STRQNGLY FAVOR. . . . . . . .21� ding development incentives, such SaMEWHAT FAVOR. . . . . . . .40� as tax breaks, to attract new com- SOI�IEWHAT �PPOSE. . . . . . . Ig� mercial and light industrial dev- STRONGLY OPP�SE. . . . . . .15� . elopment? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) And DUN�T KNpW�gEF�USED. * . . .9� do you feel strongly that way? 52. Do you favor or oppose Rosemount FAVOR. . . . , , . . . „ � . . , . ,4p$ pursuing additional heavy indus- OPFOSE/STILL oPPOSE. . ,35$ trial development in the Pine Bend OPPOSEJNC}T OPPOS�. . . , . ,g$ area? {IF ��PPOSE�� ASK: j Would OPPOSEjDON'T KNpW. . . , . .8� you still oppose it if the expan- DQN'T KNtJW/REFUSED. . . . .9$ ded tax base would result in keep- ing residential property taxes lower? Solid waste disposal is currentiy a ma�or eoncern throughou� the Metropr�litan Area. As you may know, Dakota County plans ta build a waste-to-energy garbage irtcinerator in Rosc�mount. In addition, two sites within the aity have alsc� bEen des�ignated for developmQnt as sanitary landf�lls. 53 . Assuming that the best technoloqy STRONGLY INCINERATOR. .32� wauld be used in the construction SOMEWHAT INCINERATdR. .30� of either the incinerator or a SOMEWHAT LANDFILL. . . . ,10� sanitary landfill, which pro�ect STR�NGLY LANDFTLL. . . . . .3� would you most support? (WAIT FC1R DC?N�T KNpWjREFUSED. . . .26$ RE5PONSE) And do yc�u feei strongly that way? IF OPINION IS GTVEN IN QUESTION 53, ASK: 7 � • 54. Why do yc�u feel. that way? PREFERENCE: 23� LESSER OF EVIIS: 3$ �iORE EFFICIENT: 6� OPPOSED TO OTHER: 3U$ SAFER: 9� SCATTERED: i`� There has been some discussion about the placement o� a new Twin Cities airport in or near Rosemount. 55. Do you favor or oppose the cons- STRONGLY FAVOR. . . . . . . . .7� truction vf a new internaticnal S4MEWHAT FAVCIR. . . . . . . . .5� � airport in this area? (WAIT FOR SC?MEt�iHAT OPPt?SE. . . . . : . .9� RESPONSE) Do you feel stronqly STR�NGLY �FPOSE. . , . . . .71.� that waY� DON'T K1�ttOWjREFUSED. . . , .8� IF ANSWERS nl" Z+Q u4,� GIVEN zN QUESTI4N 55, ASK: ; 56. Coul.d yau teil me one or two reasons why you feel that way? NO RQOM; 9$ WHY HERE?: S$ ZACATTClPI: 3$ Ni?�SE: 5C1� KILL RdSEM�UNT: 3� TRAFFIC: 5$ D4 NOT W�IT: 7$ TNGREASE VALUES: 4� POLLUTION; 2$ 57. If you had to chaose one deve3.op- A�iSWER A/EXPAND BASE. . 16� ment priority from the list below, ANSWER BjJ�B�. . . . . . . . .34� what would it be; ANSWER CfPRESERVE. . . . .3?$ A. Expand the tax base to keep ALL EQUALLY (VOL. ) . . . . .3� property taxes down; NONE (V�L. ) . . . . . . . . . . . .0� B. Attract more head-of-household Dt?N'T KNQW/AEF't.tSED, . . . .4� type jQbs to the city; C. Preser�ve open spaces to ke�p a small town atmosphere. Changing focus. . . . On a scale of one to ten, where ten is "excellent" �and one is "poor, " how wauld you rate Rosemount as a place. . . . ALL RE8PONSEB ARE PERCFNTAQES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 DK 58. To find housing which fits the budgets and life�tyles of most people. 1 Z 2 3 11 8 22 32 8 10 1 5s. To find full-time employ- ment opportunities for the head of a household. 15 24 24 19 10 3 0 2 1 U 3 60. To start a business. 4 6 10 10 18 9 ].4 la 2 3 13 61. To find a wide variety of entertainment and dining opportunities �cr people and families of a13 ages. 13 22 21 15 12 7 4 2 1 1 1 8 i � 1 2 3 4 S 6 ? 8 9 10 DR 62. To raise children. 1 1 i 1 4 2 11 27 24 28 1 63. To spend one's retirement years. ? 4 3 3 8 ? 12 18 14 22 1 Let's talk about the Downtown area. . . . 64. What do you consider to be the area in "Downtown Rosemount"? DON'T KNQW: 2� HWY. �3 AND 145TH: 59� HWY. #3: 10$ #3 AND #42: 8� NEAR MALL: 4$ NEAR SCHOCIL 3$ S0. ROBERT: 5$ NEAR 145TH: 5� NEAFt �42: 2� SCATTERED: 3� 65. Should the "Downtown Area" even- EXPAND �LONG HWY. 3. . .64� tually expand along Highway 3 to TREAT AS SEFARATE. . . . .22� include Caunty Road 42, or shauid BCrTH (VOL. ) . . . . . . . . . . . .3� that area be treated as a separate tJEITHER (yrJL. j , . . . . . . . .2� development �one? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. , . . .9� 66. What do you like most about downtown Rosemount� DON'T KNOW: 18$ PERSONALITY: 9� CONVENIENCE: 3b� CLEAN; 2� SMALL TOWN FEEL: 19� NEW GROWTH: 8� MALL: ?� 67. And, what do you like least about it? DON'T KNOW: 10� NOTHING: 24� WHITE BUILDINGS: 10� ND SELECTION: 36� PARKTNG: 4$ MALL: 4� RUN D4WN: 4$ SCATTERED: 6� 68, Which of the follawing two retail FRItJRITY A. . . . . . . . . . . .65� development prio=ities do you feel PRIORITY B. . . . . , . . . , . .21� should be given more attention by BQTH (VC3L. ) . . . . . . . , , . . .8� city decision-makers: NEITHER (VOL. ) . . . . . , . . .4� A. Attractinq new retail facili- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .2% ties in the downtown area to complement existing anes; 8. Developing 5ma11 malls further out of the downtown area. Some people have expressed a concern about maintaining an aesthetically pleasing downtown area. They belie�re that new building should blend into the existing downtown, even if it increases the cost to developers and might lead potential estab- lishments to build elsewhere. 9 , ! � 69. Should the City of Rosemount YES/STILL ADOPT. . . . . . .54� implement specific design and YE�/DON�T A'�FT. . . . . . ,10� aesthetic standards for businesses YES/UNSURE. . . . . . . . . . . . .8� in the community, to promote some NO. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24� tyPe of eommon character in down- 1�N'T KN�W/REFUSED. . .: .5� town bulldings? (IF "YES, " ASK;) Should such design standards be adopted and maintained even if some businesses wauld not move to Rosemount because of the higher costs to conform to these requirements? 70. Should similar standards be set YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36� - Eor businesses outside the NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53� downtown area? �N'T KATOW/REFUSED. . . .12� As you may know, Rosemount's park and recreation system is composed oE tot ].ots, neighborhood parks, iarger community and regianal parks, facilities for passive r�creation like Carroll's Woads, and active recreational facilities such as Erickson Field. During the past year, please tell me if yau or m�mbers of this household have used each facility. For those you have used, eould you �ell me whether the use was frec�uent ar oniy occasional. For seasonal activitfes, please eonsider only the appropriate season. USEj , USE/ �.K.j ' DON'T USE FREQ, QCCA. REF. 71. Tot lots. 71$ 14� 13� 3� ' 72. Neighborhood parks. 40� 30� 33$; 2$ 73. Larger community and regional parks. 42� 19� 36� 3� 74. Passiv� recreational facili- ties such �s Carroil•s Woods. 53� 18� 27� 2& 75. Active rsereatior�al facili- ties such as Erickson Fie1d. 52� 22� 23� 3� 76. Overall, would you ra�e the park EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . .27� and reereational facilities in GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56$ Rosemount as excellent, good, 4NLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . « . .8� cnly fair, or poor? POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1� DflN'T KNC3W/REFUSED. . . . .8� 77. Are there any facilities not currently in the parks that yc�u or members of your family would use, if they were there? (IF "YES, " ASKs ) What are they? DON'T KN4W: 29� NO�TE: 42� POOL: 7� TENNIS: 3� TRAII�S: 2� PICNIC AREAS: 5� PLAYGRt3UNDS: 4$ ICEt 3� SCAT�'ERED: 4� 78. Are there any recreational activities you ar members of this household undertake, which you would prefer to do in Rosemount if the facilities were better? (IF "YES," ASI�: } What are they? 10 : � � D�N'T KNOW: 29� NONE: 48� ICE: 4$ POOL: 4$ C.C. SKZz 2$ EXERCISEt 1$ TENNIS; l�k GOLFt 1$ ROLLER SKATE; 2� SCATTERED: ?�S 79. Wou1d you support or oppos� the 3t7PPORTfSTxLL SUPFC�RT.63� cit�r developing a natur� pre��rve� SUPPORT/No. . . . . . . . . . . . .7� for the protectian of wildlife SUFPORT/UNSURE. . . . . , . . .7� and nest sites? (IF "YES,N ASK: j QPPc?3E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I8� Would you still support it if � DON'T KNowjREFUSED. , . . ,6� tax increase were required to €inance its construction? 80. Would you favor or oppose a corri- SUPPQRT/STILL SUPPORT.??� dor system of bicyele and walking SUPPflRT/N4. . . . . . . . . . . . .4� trails that would conneet the var SUPPt)RTjUNStTRE. . . . . . . . ,�� ivus parts of the city? (T�' "YES," OPPQSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11� ASK: ) Would you still supgort it DC3N'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .�� i� a tax increase were required to finance their construction? 81. Currently, Rosemount's Compre- FAV�R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67� hensive Guide Flan, the iong-range t3PPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2p� guidelines far development of the DON'T KNOWjREFUSED.-. . ,13� community, allows far up to one- half of the city�s land to be set aside for agricultural purposes. Do you favor or oppose this large an allocation for permanent farm-related activities? Merving along. . . . - Many residents have commented in the past can the "smali tow»r' atmasphere of Rosemount, 82. What does that "small town" atmosphere mean to y+�u? DON'T KNOW; 3� NOTHING: 4� FRIENDLY PEOPLEt 39� PEACEF'UL: 9� SENSE OF IDENTITY: 7$ SMALLt 9� PLACE FOR FAMILIES: 4$ HAS DOWNTOWN: 4$ SAFE: ?`� nSOMETHING I VALUE": 1Q$ A NEGATIVE: 5$ 83 . Are there things that could be done in terms of future development and grawth to preserve that "small town" atmosphere'? (IF "YES, n ASKs ) What are they? DON'T KNpW: 25$ NOG: 22� PROTECT IACAL BUSINESS: �� GOOD PLANNING: 16°� DEPRESS DEVEL�OPMENT: 10$ COMMUNITY PRQJECTS: 10�s PROTECT D(}WNTOWN: 10� As you may know, Rosemount is 35 square miles and contains 7,800 residents. For comparat'ive purposes, Eagan has 44, 000 people and is 36 square miles, Burnsville's area of 27 square mi�es contains 43,000, Apple Valley houses 30,00o in its I8 city limits, Lakeville has a papulation of 20,000 in its 38 square miles, while Inver Grove Heights is also 20,000 geop],e aerass 34 square li . . ! � miles. 84. If you cauld place a eeiling on the future residential population af Rosemount, what wouZd it be? DON'T KI30W; i2$ PREFER N�NE: 8$ UNDER 10000: 18� 10-15000: 20$ 15-20000: 22$ 20-25OOU; ?$ 25-30000: 6$ 30-35000: 1� 35-40000: 3$ 40000+: 3$ To attract more retail shopping opportunities, commercial develapment, or Iight and heavy industrial plants, Rosemount wouid have to change from its current status. To attract these kinds o� opportunities, Rosemount might have to expand its population size, accept more traffic in the area, or sQme combination of the two. I would now like to ask you about the trade-offs you wouid be wi],ling to make in order to attract new economic development. Would you be willing to accept a trade-off, in allowing the popui�tion of Rosemount to grow rapidly in order to attract. . . YES NGt D.K.jREF. 85. More retail shopping �PPortunities? 54� � 41� 5� 86. More commercial office developments? 5i� 44$ �� 87. Light andjor heavy industrial plants? 55� 38� 7� How about accepting a trade-off in mare traffic on area streets and highways for. . . XES NO D.K./REF. 88. More retail shopping oppartunities? 60� 37� �$ 89. More commercial office developments? 54� 39� 7$ 90. Light and/or heavy industrial glants? 52�; 43� 6$ Let's talk about past develagment for a moment. . . . 91. Tn general, from what you have APPROVE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50$ heard or seen, do you approve or DISAPPROVE. . . . . . , . . . . ,�� disapprove of the zaning and land DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . .36� use decisian made by the City? 92. Do you feel that Rosemount resi- ADEQUATE. . . . . . . . . . . . . .47$ dents have an adequate oppoztunity INADEQUATE. , . , . . . . . . , ,�2� for input into the zoning and land DON'T KN�WjRE�'L1SED. , , .32� use decision-making process? 93. Do you think that the pace oE Tt30 RAPiD. . . . . . . . . . . . .�,3� development in the city has been ABOUT RIGHT. . . . , . . , . . .64� too rapid, about right, or not �tOT FAST ENt7UGH. , . . . . .2p� €ast enough? DON�T KN4W/REFUSED, . . . .4$ 12 . � � 94. Does the develapment acrass the WELL-FLANNED. . . . . . . . . .53�5 eity seem well-planned €or the NO2 WELL FL�ANNED. . . . . .2i� futux�e of Rosemount? DO�t'T KNQW/REFUSED. . . .27� 95. Do you th3.nk that Rosemount cur- YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7?� r�ntly has a wid� rang� of hou�ing NC�. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18� choics�� to a�f�r its re�i.dents? TXyN•T KNc3'�/��`ttSED. . . . .5� (IF "NO, " IN QUESTION 95, ASK: ) 96. What types of houszng do you feel the City should allow or encourage to expand the current range? MULTI-FAMILY: 7� LOW GOSTs 5$ MIDULE-UPPER: 2$ MORE OF WHAT IS HERE: 5� 97. Would yau favor or oppose prov�- STRONGLY FAVOR. . . . . . . . .9� ding development incentives, such SOMEWHAT FAVOR, . . . . . . . 16� as tax breaks, to attract more SQMEWHAT OPPOSE. . . . . . .3i� multi-family housing units, such STR�NGLY OPPOSE. . . . . . .40� as apartments and condominiums to Dt3A1'T KN�W/REFUSED. . . . .4�; Rosemount? (WAIT FOR RESPONSEj And do you feel strongly that way? Some people have told us they would welcome multi-family develop- ments in Rosemount i� they could be aestheticaily blended inta the community. Others do not feel that multi-family units are consistent with the "sma11 town" ambience of the community and should be discouraged. 98. Haw about you -- do you feel that YES, CONSTRUGT. . . . . . . .41� muiti-family developments which N4, OPPOSE. . . . , . . . . . . .52� blend into the community should �N'T KN�W/REFUSED. . . . .7� be constructed or do you oppase any multi-family development? 99. Would you favor or oppose provi- STRONGLY FAVOR. . . . . . . . .9% ding development incentives, such SOMEWHAT FAVOR. . . . . . . .28� as tax breaks, to attract higher SOMEWHAT OPPOSE, . . , . , .27� quality and more aesthetically STRONGL�t �PPVSE. . . . . . .40� pleasing multi-family units? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .7� (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) And do you . feel strongly that way? The National Guard intends to build an armory in Rosemeunt. The armory will provide the cornmunity with meeting roams, classrooms, banquet facilities, and aetivities rooms. Other communities have used the opportunity to add on to this structure to provide additional recreational and community facilities. I3 _ � _ ! • 100. Would you favor or'' oppose the aon- STR�NGLY FAVOR. . , . . . . .41� struction of additional recrea- SOMEWHAT FAV�R. . , . . . . .32� tional facilities as an extension SOMEWHAT 4PPQSE. . . . , .. .8� to the armory, (W�iIT FOR STRONGLY gPPc?SE. . . . , . . .6; RESPONSE) A�a ao you feel DON�T KNOW/REFUSED. . . .13� strongly that way? IF ANSWERS nl�n ��2� e �r3�n pR n4," GIVEN IN � 1U4� ASK: 101. Why do you feel that way? . NO REASQN: 8� NEEDEDt 41$ FUN TO HAVE: 11$ GOOD FOR CITY: 10� DEPENDS ON WHAT �S IN �T: 6� COST: 2� I waul.d like to read you a list af facilities that couid be included in an expansion to the armory. Far each one, please tell me if you would strongly favor its inclusion, somewhat favor it, somewhat oppose it, or strongly oppose it. STR, SMT. SMT. STR. D.K./ FAV. FAV. OPP. OPP. REF. 102. Cammunity theatre'? 17� 53� 15� 11� 4� 103. Band shell? 1S� 48� 20� 11� 4� 104. An indoor swimming pool? 27� 27� 27� 16� 3$ 105. A gymnasium? 31$ 29� 23� 12� 5� I06. An exercise and fitness room? 2?� 37� 2�.� 11� 5$ 207. A whirlpool bath and SPa? 16$ 27� 30� 22$ 5$ 108. An indoor ice arena? 25� 35� 20� 16� ` 5� 1�9. An outdaor wading paol? 24� 37� 22�k 11� 6� i10. Indoor tennis courts? 12� 28'� 35� 1�� 6� 1.11. Racquet ba].l courts? 13� 32� 32� 17& 6� 112. Day eare and latchkey facilities? 31� 40� 14$ 8$ 8*g 113 . Are there any other faciia.ties �ou wcauld ��ke tv see in a Communifiy Center? (IF �'YES, " ASK: ) What are they? D�N'T KNQW: 4� AtONE: 83$ SENIOR CENTER; �$ ADULT ED: l� OUTtX30R P+�OL: 2� LIBRARY: 1$ SCATTERED: 7� i would like to briefly re-read that list of patential facilities for an expansion to the armory. 114. Please teil me which one you wauld most strangly favor for inclusion? TURN PAGE TO CIRCLE ANSWER. 115. How about your seeond preference? 116. Is there any facility that you would oppose ineluding i,n an armory expansion? 14 . ' ' � � . MOST SECONI3 t7PPQSE Community theatre? 10� 10�; 5� Band shell? 5� 8$ 5� An indoor swimming pool? 12� 9� 6� A SYmnasium? 9� 12� 2� An exercise and fi�ness room? 7� �,1� Z� A whirlpaol bath and spa? 2� 2� 14� An indoor ice arena? 16� 8� �2� An outdoor wading pool? g� �� Indoor tennis courts? 3$ 2� 8� Raaquet ball courts? 0� 3� �� Day eare and latchkey facilities? 16� g� 4� Al�l of them egua2ly. 4� 4� $� None of them. 6� 8� 20� Don't know/refused. 5:� 6� 8� -- The building of an armory extension might require passage of a bond referendum. Taxpayers could be asked to pay far the construction of the facility and to share in the cost o� underwriting the additionai facilities. User fees would also underwrite its operation to same extent. 117. Haw much would you be willing to NOTHING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22� pay in additional property taxes $25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22� to support the canstruction and $50. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .�3� partial operation of a Rosemount $?5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7� Community Center? (START WITH A $1p0. . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8� ` RANDOMLY SELECTED CTIOICE) Let's $125. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2$ say, would you be willing to pay $150. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1� $ per year? (M�VE T0 NExT $175. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1� CHOICE UP OR DQWN DEPENDING ON DC3NrT KN�WfREFUSED. . . .24$ ANSWER. REPEAT. ) On a different topic. . . . Dakota County will soan require all cities to separate recyclables Erom their trash. The City of Rosem4ut�t 3.s currently reviewing alternatives ta comply with the county ree�cling requirement. 118. Do you currently separate YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43�5 recyclables fram the rest of Np. , . . . . , , , . . . . . . . . . . .57� yaur garba9e' ;. . IF ��YES" TN QUESTION #118, ASK: Which of the following materials do �rou recycle?: YES Nt} D.K. 119. Glass? 22� 22� �� 120. Newspapers and cardboard? 34� g$ x� 121. Metal and aluminum? 36$ �� ,� i5 1 � � 122. Now and where dv you recyele them? 12E:CYCLI:NV CEN'1'EI2: ;L1$ KNU'1'SUtJ P1C:K UY: 1l$ WUE2K; 1� GIVE AWAY: 7$ PAPER DRIVE: $$ STILL SAVING: 2� One way to meet the county requirement is for the City to establish a curbside pick-up of separated recyalable materials. Households wouid be asked to separate recyclables from the rest of their trash and haulers would carry them away. 123. If the City instituted a pick-up VERY LIKELY. . . . . . . . . . ,67$ system, how likely would you be SOMEWHAT L�KELY. . . . . . .20$ to use it -- very likely, some- NOT AT ALL LIKELY. . . . ,li� what likely, or not at all likely? DON'T KNOW/REFUSFD. . . . .2� 124 . If your present garbage bill WOULD TF 10� INCR�ASFs.39� would be increased by ten percent WOULD TF NOTHING M�3RE.23� by participating in the proqram, WOULD IF S1�vE 1p�. , , , ,16� would you do so? (IF �rNOiF� ASK: ) WOULD N�T AT ALL. . . . . .10$ Haw about if it cost you nothing DON'T KN4W/REFUSEll. . . . 12$ " additional? {IF "NO, " ASI�: ) If it would save you ten percent on your hauling bill'? Movirig on. . . . 125. If more frequent and expanded pub- VER3t LIKELY. . . . . . . , . . . 14� lic transportation were available SOMEWHAT LIKELY. . . . . . .23� connecting Rosemount with Downtown NOT AT ALL LIKELY. . . , ,61� Minneapolis, Blc�omington, and QON'T KNC}WjREFUS�D. . . . .2� Downtown Saint Paul, how 2ikely is it that you wou3d frequently use the system -- very likely, somewhat iikely, or not at all likeiy? 126. z� more frequent and expanded public tran�partation we�re av�ilable, a�e there any time�, such as :for shsaPpi.n9, transit to wark, school, entertainment, or visits to h�alth professionals, when you wou2d be very likeiy to use it? {�F "YESr " ASK: ) When would that be? W�ULD NOT Ct5E A2 ALL: 53� USE TO SHOP: 11$ WORK-SCN�L: 17� ENTERTATNMENT: 6$ ERRANQS: 4� SCATTERED: 2� 127. What is your principal; saurce of information about City government and its activities? NONE: 2$ "COUNTRYSIDE": 15$ WORD OF MQUTH: I3$ _.. __ . LOCAL PAPER: 54� "THIS WEEK": 9$ MEETINGS: l� TV: 2� STAR-TRIBUNE: 1� DAKOTA COUNTY TRIBUNE: 1� MAYOR�S LETTER: 1$ Rosemount is served by three regional or locai papers. For each one, please tell me whether you receive it. Far each yau - reaeive, piease tel.l me if you gsnerally xead it. 16 . . • . � � DON�T REC.j REC./ L1.K.f GET READ dQN'T REF. 128. "This Week News"? il� 85$ 3�k 1$ 129, "Countryside��g 12� 84& 4� 0$ 130. "Dakota County Tribune"? 89� 10� 1� 1� 131. Would you favor or oppose the FAVOR. . , , . , , , . . , . . . , , .7�,� City publishing a quarterly newsi OPPt?SE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22� lefi�ter to residents, cowering DON'T KNOW/REFUSEQ. . . . ,7$ government activities, special notices, and park and recreational information� (IF "FAVQR" IN QUESTIQN 131, ASK; ) 132. Would you still favor it even YES. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57� though funds would have to be N4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9� reallocated for the groject Dt)N'T KN4t�/RE�'U�ED, .. . .5� in the current city budget? 133 . Are you aware of the Bi-Annual YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6p� Town Meetinqs held by the Mayor N4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38� and City Council, to receive DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . .2� citizen input? 134. Currently, the minimum lot size in LARGER THAN 3.00q0. . . . .27� Rosemount is 10,000 square feet, SMALLER THAN Z0000. . . . .3� or about 80 feet by 125 feet. In KEPT AT PRESENT LEVEL.60� general, do you feel that this Ut}N'T I�NOW/REFU'SE�, . . .1],� minimum lot size sl�ould be larger than 10, 000 5quare feet, smaller than 10,00o square feet, or kept at its present level? 135. Do you support or oppose further SUPPORT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58� rural residential development OFPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .22� of at least five acres in Rose- DON'T KNpWjREFUSED. . . .20� ' . mount that allows no tie-zn to city sewer and water; that is, allows wells and septic tanks? 136. Do you feel that daycare and YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32� latchkey needs are being ade- NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25� quately met by current providers �N'� KNOWjREFUSED, . . .42� in the city? Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes. . . . Gould you please tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household. �t's start oldest to youngest. . . . 237. First, persons b5 or over? 0: 91$ i: 4� 2: 5� 138. Adults under 65? (including 0: 6� 1: 12� 2: 58� yourself)_ 3. 9� �4; 3� 5: 2� 17 . � . • � 139. High school aged? (Grades i0 - 12) a: 83$ l: 13� 2: 4� 140. Junior high aged? (Grades � "' �) � Os 90$ 1: 10� 2; l� 141. E2ementary school children? 0: 72� l: �9� 2z 9� (Grades K-6) 3; �,� 142. Pre-schoolers? Os 76$ i: 18� 2: 6� 143. Do you awn or rent your present aWN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,78� residence? RENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22�; �N'T KAtQW/REFUSEA. . . . .0� 144. Which of the following best SINGLE FAMILY �WELL. . .71�5 describes your re$idence? AP'F/CONDt3 , . . , , . . . . . . .10� . {READ CHOICES) TOWPIHOUSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . .8$ FARM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4$ OTHER: MQBILE/MANUFACTU�EL?. . . .?$ . D4N'T KPiQW/REFUSEA. . . . .+D$ 145. What is your age, please� 18-24. . . . . . . . . . .: . . . . . .7$ (READ CATEGORIES, IP' NEEDED) 25-34. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3?$ 3�-44. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24$ 45-54. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13� 55-64. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10$ 65 �IND OVER. . . . . . . . . . . .$� REFUSEa. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .Q� 146. What is the occupation of the head ot this househal,d? PROFESSIONAL-TECHNICAL: 19$ OWNER-MANAGER: 2fl� CLERiCAL-SALES; 13� BLUE COLLAR: 32$ RETIRED: 12� SCATTERED: 2$ ' 147. Could you tell me the city where the job of the head of this hausehold is Iocated? ROSEMQUNT: 15� RETIRED: 13� MINNEAPt3LIS: 8$ RURAL: 5$ EAGAN-BURNSVILLE-APPLE VALLEY; 19� REST CJF DAKOTA: 6� ' BL�OMINGTON: 9$ ST. PAUL: 9$ RES� QF METRO: 5$ SOUTH HENNEPIN: 6$ ALL OVER: 6$ 148. How about the city of the full-time jobs held by any other members of this household? ROSEMOUNT: 16� RETIRED-DO NOT WORKt 42$ MII�NEAPOLTSt 4$ RURAL: 2$ EAGAN-BURNSV�LLE-APPLE VALLEY; 17� REST OF DAK�TA: 3� BLAOMINGTONt 5� ST. PAUL; 2$ REST OF METRO: 3� SOUTH HENNEPINs 3� ALL QVER: l$ 18 . . . . • 149. What is the last grade of school LESS THAN HIGH SCHOOL. .4� you completed? HTGH SCHOOL GRADUATE. .31� VO-TECH SCHOOL. . . . , . . , 13� SOME COLLEGE. . . . . . . . , .2?� COLLEGE GRADUATE. . . . . .18$ . P�ST-GRADUATE. . . . . . . . . .7$ REFtTSED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Q� 150. Couid you te11 me your approximate UNDER $12,500, . . . . . . . . .3� pre-tax yearly household incom+�. $12,50fl-$2�,000. . . . . . .18� Does the income lie. . . . $25,QO1-$37,500. . . . . . .30� $37,501-$50,000. . . . . . .27� $50,003-$62,540. . . . . . . .8� t3VER $62,50f}. . . . . . . . . . ,$� DON�T KNOW. . . . . . . . . . . . .1$ . REFUSED, . . . . . . . . � . . . . . .5� 151. Sex (BY OBSERVATION: DO NOT ASR) MALE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48$ FEMALE/AT I34ME. . . . . . . .21$ IF �'FEMALE, " ASK: Do you work FEMALEjWORKS �UTSIDE. .32$ outside the home? 152. Residential Zones WARD ONE: 24� WARD TWO: 24� WARD 'FHREE: 19$ WARD FQUR: 33� 19 w • � � D�'C�S1C)�l • Re� o�r�e� L� . EXECOTIVE SUMM�RY This study contains the results of a telephone survey af 40a randomly seleeted residents of the City c�f Rosemount. Survey responses were gathered by professional interviewers between December 15, 1988, and January 6, 1989. The average interview ' took forty-five minutes. In general, random samp3es such as this yield results projectable ta the entire universe of Rosemount residents within + 5. 0 percentage points in 95 out of 3.00 cases. Rosemount is, in many ways, the quintessential '�exurb�n" area. Poised geographically between the rural small towns to its south and the high growth suburbs to its north, Rosemount blends many of the characteristics of each. In doing so, it has estabiished a unique demographic pattern that can best be 'described as "pre-growth: " ehanges which suggest that it will evolve into a traditional "outer-ring" suburban community, combined with a stability that augers more toward a tawn-2ike enciave amidst the suburban spra�al. The next few years will be critical to the ultimate resolution of the eommunity's identity. Sa far, Rosemount has escaped the rapid popuiation build-ups which eharacterize the Dakota County �uburbs to its north. About one-quarter of the residents have arrivecI during the past twa years, a lower fraction than the high growth areas, one mare typical of the Hennepin County suburbar� belt. In addition, thirty-six percent of the residents haue lived in Rosemount for at least ten years, adding a sizable stab3e group to the papulatian. Most residents also anticipate staying for at least a decade, if not langer; a result more consistent with ma�Gure suburbs than fast-growing suburbs, where greater transience is the rule. Rosemount does not evidence any major influx o� young families fram the Twin Cities. Instead, it principally draws frQm four main sources: first, other Dakota County suburbs; then, areas aaross the remaining six Metropolitan Area counties; and finaJ.ly, out-state and outside Minnesota. Eaeh c�f these areas have provided almost equ�l segments e�f the Rosemount population. Currently, Rosemount is witnessinq an up-tick in the numbers of residents arriving from Northern Dakota County suburbs, �sually ir� reaction to the fast growth gaing on there. Rather than functioning in the traditianal role of a suburb which reiies upan the core city far its in-migration, Rosemount draws lateraily from other suburbs and from more disparate areas, The perspective of most residents, though, wiil nc�t reflect 3i�8 C�ear� C:ouri • Minne�pc�lis, Minn�sc�ta 5.�4IE� • (Ei121 �3�tr-t)3;37 . � • expectations based upon a history of experience with eore city services; instead, it will be a blend of expectations raised in other suburbs and rural areas. In general, expectations among the former suburban dwellers tend to be much higher than the narm and a well-functioning, effective city government will be taken for granted by this qroup of residents. The number of small children in Rosemount is groc�ing rapidly. Most new residents report the presence af at least one pre-schooler. And, the overall pattern of children suggests that Rosemount's eantribution to their school system will increase during the next few years. In fact, €ifty-seuen percent o� the households in the sample reported a child either too young t4 be in school or one who is current].y enrolled. The growing number of children, then, can be expected to shape service demands €or the foreseeable future. The average age of an adult resident was found to be 37 years old. Over one third of the pQpuiation, though, lies between 25 and 34 years ald. Seniors are only nine percent of the city residents and senior-anly househo2ds are a law six percent. Married couples with children are th� typical househc�ld within the city. Only twenty-two percen� of the sampie reported renting their current residence. But, the differences between single family home-owners and non-home-owners were striking. The latter graup tended to be geographically clustered in one s�ction of Rosemount, aged 18-2� or over 55, and have lower incc�mes within tl�e $12,500-$25, 000 yearly range. Single famiiy home owners were more likely to be 35-54 �rears old, up-scale white callar occupations, and earning over $37,500 per �ear. �iven these demagraphic differences, some attitudinal divergence should be expected. While a White Collar ma�ority exists in Rosemc�unt, ' Blue Collar workers still account for just under one-third of the households. Professional-Technical and Owner-Manage� households number just shy of forty percent. Retirees are an additional twelve percent. This occupational structure is reflected irt the educational achievement of residents: fifty-two percent have at least attended some college, if not graduated, Dual income households also dominateds sixty percent of married couples indicated that both spouses work outside the home. The median yearly household income proved to be $31,667, almost $6,5QO less than the suburban average. Current in-migration suggests that the occupa�ionai strueture of the city will stabilize at the current White �oilar- Blue Collar mix, but the number of upscale White Collar house- holds wili grow. Newer residents tend to be Owner-Manager job- holders rather than Clerical-Sales households. This change should slowly inerease the median household income over time, In the morning, most Rosemount workers head north ta 2 , . • adjacent suburbs or northwest across the Minnesata River. Places af work in Dakota County suburbs were cited by forty geraent of the sample. Minneapolis and its Southern suburbs account fc�r an additianal twenty-three percent. Public transportation planning should, consequently, reflect these patterns. As one interviewee told us, "Rosemount is th�t unique kind of community which provides sma�.l tawn living c2ose to the amenities of mc�re highly and intensively developed cities. We ' have it both ways." The demographics of the community would bear out this statement. But, both that description and the city's demographics suggest strongly that "keeping it both ways'� is the major chalienge facing the community. Rosemount citizens are qenerally content wi.th their community. Eighty-nine percent approved af the qual�ty of life there; thirty-two percent, strongly so. Residents were drawn to the city for many reasons -- rural and small town ambienee, open space and housing, hiqh quality schools, and nearby employment opportunities. Even today, most residents fe�l that the characteristies which initially attracted them are still very much euidenced in the community. When Ros�mount is thought about in general terms by its r�sidents, it is the rural country-like atmosphere and small tawn ambience which comes quickly to mind. That image, toge�her with the friendly people, are the most outstanding characteristics of the community in the minds of two-thirds of the sample, It is also the future protection of this image which provakes the mo€�t unrest in the citizenry. Twenty-two percent o€ the respondents were very critical of the rapid growth taking plaee in the community, while twenty-four perc�nt were dissatis€ied with the slQw rate of develapment, particularly in retail shopping opgortunities. Even so, sixty-eight percent of the sample saw Rosemount as a small town, while only twenty-seven percent felt it was a suburb. Reeonciling effective growth and development with the small towr� imaqe o� the community is cleariy th�; key problem facing palicy-makers today. Residents are generally connected to their c4mmunity. The quality of inediating inst�tution� -- su�h as churche�s, schacls, and parks -- and the geeling o� living amc�ng like-mind�d, similar People are two va1u� people prizs highly. Almost sixty percent of th� sampl� felt th�y had rea]. roo�a� in the community. But, that sacialization was som�what less e�fec�ive among r+esidents for less than five years. On the issue af empawermen�, the abilit�r to impact city decision-making, only twenty-t�ree percent expressed alienation, a camparative].y iow level. RQsemount, then, is the prototypical small town in mass society, providing nearby urban livzng and offering rural, traditi.onal values to its residents. The concern and lack 4f operating consensus about future development wa� best euidenced in the choice between preserving rural character a� the cost of slower economic growth ar pursuing 3 • � economic development at the cost of increased suburbanizatic�n. Forty-seven percent favored the farmer approach; forty percent, the Iatter. But, this concern is future-arientedr th� fact that a majority of residents feel changes in recent years have been for the better, and ninety-three percent rate the appearance of their neighborhoods as either "excellent" or �good, �� indica�es a high level of satisfaetion with the past and present. When asked to evaluate various aspects of the quality of life in Rosemount, residents gave both "high average" as well ss "low average" grades. The community was ae�m�a an a good place to find housing which fits most budgets and lifestyles, an excellent place to raise children, and a gaod place ta reti.re. It received middling ratings as a place to start a business. Much lower ratings were awarded Rosemount on the availab�.ity of full-time head of household jobs and the variety of entertainment and dining opportunities. Tn determining its economie development strategy, three factors must be given priority: jobs creation, retail shopping, and leisure time offer�ings. Most residents of the city are justifiably proud of its small town atmospherics. But, in questioning, it became clear that the small town ambience is li.nked to the fri�ndliness of Rosemount residents rather than physical feature� of the community. This resu�t strongly suggests that deeision-makers must aPi'ard res3dents the opportunity tQ interaet in community- spirited ways. Residents sugqested pvlicies to protect the downtown area and local busine��, aontrol spraw7, and overdevelopment, and plan voluntary communi.ty-wide pro�ects. The dawntown area, in partieular, mu�t glay a key role in continuing ta fost�r the small town ambience which residents so highly prize. Rosemount citizens are not dogmatica3ly "anti-taxes, " T}�� are wi3ling to support increases for demonstrable city needs� Qr to insure that service levels are kept at their gresent levels of qua3ity. Fifty-ane percen� af the residents wQuld suppart a property tax increase if it were required ta mai»tai.n city services at their current level. This predispasition is undoubtediy due to the feeling that prQperty taxes are not now excessively high and that city services provide a good value an the tax dollar. There is, however, some confusion about the actual city tax burden. Most residents have no idea abaut the Rosemount�s share of the property tax. Those that do tended to be very realistic in their estimates. But, in the future, it may be wise to underscore the cost-e�ficiency of eity services thraugh the provision of more information to the citizenry. - City services were generally we].1-regarded ' by the respondents. Poliee protection, fire protectian, and park maintenance received Qutstanding ratings. Snow plowing, �i�X street repair and maintenance, and animal control receaiv�d maderately high grades, al.though in each case on�-quarter of the 4 r � � residents were critical. Water quality, primarily its taste, was rated unsatisfa�torily by almost one-halP of the r�sidents, whiie building and housing inspecta.on praved to be ur�famil�ar to about fort�r percent of the cit�.zenry. Same re-evaluation Qf indfvidual service provision appears necessary, but overall citizefls were contex�t with their aity government on this dimension. The Rasemount Park ancl Recreation Syst�m f� highl�r valued by most aitizens. Eighty-three percent of the sample rated it as either "exeellent�' or "gaod." Usership, at eighty-one p�rcent, was among the highest rates recorded a.n tha suburbs. Neighborhood parks and larger communityjregional parkg were the most frequently used companents of the system; sixty-three percent reported visiting the former, whiie fifty-five percent went ta the Iatter. Passive recreational and active reereationai facilities drew forty-five pereent cf the sample. Proximity to these faeilities played a key ro2e in their use by residsnts, Tot lots, while drawing only twenty-seven percent Q� the residents, possessed a very well-defined usership segment, A3.so, in light of the qrowing numbers of young families, their use can only be expected to increase in the future. While the vast majority of residents were satisfied with current facilities ar�d opportunities, some support exf.sted for additions to the system. A swimming pool and more picnic areas were sought by seven and five peresnt af the respondents, respectively. And, four percent of the respondents indicated they would prefer to use an ice arena and swimming pooi in Rosemount, if it were available. Future planning priorities may wish to take account of these expressed preferences. Many communities are attempting to come tc� grips with the recycling issue. Rosemount begins ahead of most other areas, with forty-seven percent af the citizenry already re�ycling to some extent. Newspaper/eardboard and metaZjaiuminum were already be correctly disposed of by about thirty-four percent of the citizenry. Glass, though, trailed at twenty-twv percent. Residents rely upon a number of structured and occasional ways of disposing of their recyclables: the reeyeling center, Knutson Pickup and paper drives were the most popular. If the cfty were to institute its own program for picking-up recyclables, fifty-one percent of the households could be expected to participate. Tf a savings of ten percent on present hauling costs could be realized, seventy-eight percent of the citizenry indicated some interest in the program; even with a ten percent additional cost, thirty-nine percent were stili willing to participate. Unlike many other municipalities, the current behavior and proSpective intentions of residents sugg�st that a cost-efficient recyaling program should be expected to meet mandated levels quite handiiy. Crime was not deemed as seriaus an issue as in other parts of the suburbs. Less than twent�y-five perc�nt of the samgle felt that crimes against property had increased in Rosemount during 5 � � the past five years; only ten g�rc�nt, th�t crimes against peQpls k�ad so ri�en. In cc►mparfson with o�th�r nearby suburbs, �eazs of a "crime wav�" ar� literally non-�xi�t�nt. While lccal schools were rated extraordinari.ly high, Rosemount residents were much mere critical about the University of Minnesota. The quality of local schovls was felt to be excellent by sixty percent of the respondents. Overa].1, the approvai rating of eighty-seven percent is one of �he h3.ghest which the researchers have encountered in the Metropolitan Area. But, the citixenry split for�y percent to thirty-six percent in feel.ing that the University had not been responsible in the administration and use of the land it holds within the city borders. While there was a multitude of suggestions for use of that land, one clear consensus about ways it should nat be used was registered: fifty-two percent definitely opposed an airpart on that site. Also, nearly seventy percent of the cammunity feit that the City should lobby the leqislature to place some controls on the use of the land, with a majority still supportinq that action, even if a modest property tax increase were required ta cover the costs, There was a seemingly uneasiness faund in the relatir�nship between many xesidents and the Koch R�finery. Seventy-eight percent of the sample was aware tY�at the refinery laid within the city limits. But, wt�ile farty-one percent of the sample approved of the actions af Koch as a corporate citizens o€ the city, forty-seven percent disapgroved. Better pollution and odor control were the ma�or concerns of most respondents when asked about the company. These results stand in marked contrast to the highly positive view that Cottage Grove residents, for exampZe, take of 3M/Chemolite. There has been substantial discussion lately about means f4r dealing with the dis osal o€ solid wastes. P some communities favor the landfill approach, whil� others boost incfnerators. Rosemount residents, by a clear sixty-two percent ta thirteen percent majority, opted for an incineratar. While part of the support for an incineratar stemmed from apposition to iandfill sites, in general, many residents also beiieved that an inci,nerator was also safer, more efficient, and the better technology for the problem. If one issue excited residents the most, it was the sub�ect of the construction of a new Twin Cities Airport in or near Rosemount. While only twelve percent supported the gra3ect, an incredible eighty percent opposed it; most opposed it stronglyf Whiie inereased traffic and its direct effect on the "small town" ambience of the city motivated some opposition, noise levels were the key concern. Since many residents came tc� Rosemount in a quest for a "small town" atmosphere, the imp�ct o� a ma�ar airport nearby would certainly destroy the many fine poir�ts which define the community in the minds af its resid�nts. The downtown area is viewed by many as a unique and �.ntegral 6 . • . � part of the community, one to be protected and nurtured by future development plans. A consensus exists about what constitutes "Downtown: " tv almost sixty pereent of the citi2enry, Downtown is the area within a few blc�cks of Hi.ghw�y �3 and 145th Street. Another twenty percent would expand the defini.tion to include other sectic�ns of Highway �3. But, residents also feel that in the future it should expand along Highway #3 to include County Road �2; �ust under two-thirds af the papulation prefer the treatment of this area by the City as one development zone. In discussing what they liked most about downtown Rosemount, respondents dwelled an tw4 features: first, thirty-six pereent mentioned its convenience as a shopping area, and secand, twenty- eight percent pointed to its distinctive "small tvwn" personality. in future plans, efforts should be m�de to reinfQrce these two images. On the downside, residents were critical of the limited selection of goods and merchandise and the construction of "white buildings." More diversity should be encauraged in the types of enterprises settling into this area, And, as will be discu�sed, the aesthetics o€ Downtown Rosemount are particularly important to many residents. A clear pattern of planning to incorporate the natural beauty af the area into future deve2apments was exhibited by many residents. Sixty-three percent of the respondents would support the construction of a nature preserve, even if a tax increase were required for financing. Seventy-seven percent o� the residents would support the constructian af a corridor trail system in the city, even if a tax increase wer� required. Aiso, two-thirds of the city approved of the current allocation of up to one-half o� the aity�s land for agricultural purp4ses. These positions certainly reflect and expand upan the "small town'� ambience that most residents prize. As suburbs to the North have grawn quiekly durinq the past few years, a general concern has developed ir� Southern Dakota County about over-population. Residents were asked if they weuld cap the city�s population at some level in the future. Forty-two percent would halt growth at some level between 10,000 and 20,004 residents. The median 2eve1 suggested was 14,500, smal�er than either Lakeville or Inver Grove Heights. Obviously, residents who saw the community as a ruralE small town settlement tended to support levels even smaller than this average figure. There was a general lack of interest �n extensive public transportation systems. Only seventeen p�reent of the residents could be projected as ridership of a future system cot�nect3.ng Rosemount with Downtown Minneapolis, B1.00mingtan, and Downtown Saint Paul. Residents split evenly in indicating that they would be mast likely to use public transport for journeys to work and schoal or for shopping and entertainment. But, consisten�. with the view of many other suburbanites, Rosemount residents have a deep and abiding attachment ta their automobile. ? � � � On development issues, Rosemount residents are balancing the need for j4bs in the area with the desire to mairitain the rural, small town nature of the eity. When queried about the type of development they,would prefer, respondents opt�d for industrial, retail, commercial, and housing, in that order. Eighty percent favored an aggressive effort by the City to attract new commercial and light industrial projects to the area. In fact, an unusually high sixty-one percer►t to thirty percent majority even favored awarding development incentives to induce developers to the city. On the question of heavy industrial development, a closer split was found: forty-eight percent o€ the resfdents wauld support more of that kind of construction and operativn if it would favorably impact the tax base; �hirty-five pereent opposed it, even if property tax benefits wauld result. Not surprising, given these and earlier findings, residentia2 summary judgments defined the top two priorities for the future as the preservation of open spaces to keep a small town atmosphere and the attraction of more head-of-household �obs to the city. Residential opinions about further develapment in the Downtown axea were very consistent with prevailing opin�.ons about the current status of that part of the city. By a three-to-one margin, citizens feel that retail develepm�nt priarities should be �n the attraction of new facilities to the downtawr� area rather than constructing small malls further out. F�.fty-four pereent, a majority of respondents, favor specifie design and aesthetic standards for businesses located downtown to promote a comman eharacter, even if some businesses do nat move to the eity in reaction to these restrictions. But, a majority also €eeI that similar standards should not apply to businesses �,ocated outside of the downtown area. Once again, the Downtown �rea is treated by most residents as a "special plaCe," almost, tc� speak metaphorically, as the "heart and soul" of the community, Rosemount citizens are clearly wi32ing to accept trade-offs to pursue desired development objectives. Salid ma�orities would accept rapid populatior► growth to attra�t light and/or heavy industrial plants as well as more retail shopping opportunities. A less decisive majority would accept population growth to , att�act more commercial office develapments. Gr�ater traffi� on area streets would be talerated by strong majorities in return for more retail shopging opportunities and comm�rcial o�fice develapments. A narrower majority wauld accegt the traffic in exchange for additional light and/or heavy fndustrial plants. In short, papulation growth is more cantrovexsial i€ the purpose is to attract office space; similarly, traffic cQngestion is a mcsre heated issue in pursuit of industrial plants. otherwise, citizens are wil2ing to accept prudent trade-offs tca foster more economic opportunity. Zoning and land use deeisians by the Gity received a lower than norn3al approval rating from residents. Fi€ty percent, about ten percent below the narm, approved of past decisi4ns; however thirty-six gercent were unabie to answer the question, due to a lack of i�nformation. Only forty-severt percent felt there was an 8 . � • � � adequate opportunity for input; a relatively high �wenty-twc� pereent through those apportunities were inadequate. The process, then, needs some r�-�xamination to insure both the' pereeption and reality of residential participation. The general direction of past decisians, however, came under far less criticism. Sixty-four gercent felt that the pace of development was about right for the community. Fifty-three percent viewed development across the city as well-planned for the future. A strong three-quarters of the citizenry alsa viewed housing as affering residents a wide choice. Certainly at this point �n time, there is no perc�ptible "developmertt crisis" taking place in the residents; fears tend to based on th� future, rather than the past or present. Rosemount citizens exhibited a high degree of an�ipathy toward multi-family hausing units. This reaction has been eammon throughout Dakota County, perhaps in reaction to development$ in Burnsville and Bloominc�tan. Seventy-one percent oppos� d�vel.op- ment incentives ta attract more apartments and condominiums ta the city. A ma�ority of fifty-twa percent oppose any further multi-fa�nily projects, even if they aestheticaliy blend into the present charac�er o� the cammunity. And, consistent with this feeling, sixty-seven percent oppose develoPment incentive� to attract highez quaZity and mor� pleasing multi-family uni:ts. At this juncture, any attemgts to place large scale complex�s within the city will k�e met with significant hostility. Residents take a moderate approach to further hausing construetion. Sixty percent support, keeping the eurr�nt minimum lot size at 1.0, 000 square feet; however, almost thirty p+�rcent favor a larger minimum, Additionally, fifty-eight p�srcent support furthez rural residential construetion that allows no tie-in to city sewer and water services. �n s�.nqle' family hom�s, there is a cansensus behind present poiicies. Most Rosemount citizens vi,ew the opportunity to add on community facilities to the new armory in a highly favorab�e light. Seventy-three percent favor additional recreationa2 con- struction as an extension to the facility; only fourt�en percent opposed. Even if a tax increase were required, the averas�� resident would be willing ta pay as much as an additional $37.5U yearly to underwrite the casts. Residents also expressed very definite preferences about facilities for inclusion in the armory additian. The strongest NET support levels were present for: aay care and latchkey facilities, a eommunity theatre, a band shell, and an exercise and fitness room. Moderate net support levels favored an outdoor wading pool, a gymnasium, and an ir�door ice arena. 4pinions were more closely divided on an indoor swi,mming pool. Racguet ball courts, indoor tennis courts, and a whirlpool bath and spa regi,stered net opposition. But, these are aggregate support/apposition seores which more often reflect general cammunity interest and eommitment rather than a decision to favor 9 . . � � or oppose the overall project. Viewing these results from another perspeetive, it is possible to diseuss those facilities which are especially important to peopie, rather than those which they feel would be a good idea. Five additions were especially important: day care and latchkey facilities, a gymnasium, an exercise and fitness room, an indaor swimming pool, and a community �theatre. An indoor iee arena registered a moderately high impQrtance rating; it polarizes eitizens -- there is a large segment favoring the ice arena, but a relatively sizable group i� opposition to it, For pl.anning gurpases, �hese intenaity ratir�gs coacrelate b4th with support in a referendum �nd usage levels. Same m3.x of facilities that possess a high general i.nterest level among the citizenry and have significant pockets of adamant support ma�r be the optimal pianning strategy. Rosemount is in need of a more standardized and regular communications system between the City and its reside�nts. Citizens presently rely upon local newsgapers and the grapevine �or informatian about City government and its ac�,ivities. In fact, about eighty-five percent of the communfty reported reading both "This Week News'� and "Countryside, �� excellent circulatian figures. But, the consideration ef a newsiet�er ar other city- spansored vehicle for explaining activit3.es and poiicfes should be undertaken. Seventy-one percent of t�e respondents favored the publication of a quarterly newsletter. In faet, fifty-seven percent, a compelling ma�ority, supported its publication `even if funds had to be reallocated in the current budget. Current city practices simply are not reaehing enough residentsz forty percent of the sample were unaware of the Bi-Annual Town Meetings. This finding is not meant to suggest that meetings should be discontinued; it simply indicates that a supplementary eommunications device is called for. Symptomatic of the lack of a regular communications vehicle are residents' inability to comment o» the activities of either thc� staff or elected officials. Citizer�s possess a high general level o� knowledge abt�ut the Mayor and City Councii: f'arty two percent felt they knew either a great deal or a fair amaunt abaut their activities. But, there was an abysmal level of information on concrete actions. The Mayor and Council apgrc�val rating of sixty-seven perc�nt was relatively strong in comparison with other suburbs; the disapproval at nine percent was about average. But, twenty-four percent of the sample could nat evaluate thei,r actions -- a high proportion of uninformed citizens, Further, the approval rating, with one notable exception, was based upon fuzzy generalizations; there was a iack of speeifzc comments on polieies or actions. The one exceptian, unique to Rosemaunt, was the ane-in-seven people approved of City Government actions because of the style and activities of the new Mayor. The data suggest strongly that this good reservoir of support for th� City Council can be expanded and salidified with better IO . . � � i communications. City staff wa� familiar to thirty-seven percent of the residents, a tad above the suburban norm. The fifty-seven per�ent approval rating was somewhat lower than average, whiie the disapproval rating of seventeen percent was samewhat higher. But, again, about one-quarter of the residents were unable to evaluate the staff. More than in other communitzes, evaluaticans were more heavily based upon specific interactions rather than hearsay or media reporting. Communications about the actions of staff, even though they might not directly impact a resident would still build good will and he2p reduce the perception of "invisibility" expressed by thase holding no opinions. The handieap of no city publication certainly bears upon these ratings. In summary, Rosemount citizens are very pleased with their community. They are satisfied, for the mvst part, with past palicies and actions. The areas of most concern appear to centex around the course of future deveiopment -- maintaina.ng the '�srnal.l town" ambience during a period of prajected area growth. Preservinq and enhaneing this highly positive image of a well-rur► "small town'� in a mass suburban setting, while encouraging growth and eeonomic development ta meet community needs, will. be the key issue facing decision-makers in the future. 11